|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 17, 2016 12:03:30 GMT
It would be interesting to find out if the failed appeal is reflected in the purchasing sum that the new owners pay to the previous owners of the club. There could well be a retention clause with penalties in the event that the appeal fails. I'd be surprised if the price paid wasn't conditional on the outcome of the appeal. Time to move on & see what the new owners can deliver now. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 16, 2016 18:34:43 GMT
Write to the club to complain. If they are a season ticket holder the club will know the person from their seat number and should send them a warning at the very least.
I've seen people with young kids leave the Dribuild at half-time, or swap seats, to avoid some mouthy individuals who only have one adjective in their vocabulary. Sad really that a little lad is excited to be going to see his team and then is subjected to an afternoon of spit and fury by an old-timer who obviously has no shame. And when the crowd is quiet and you clearly hear the players swearing on the pitch, take a note of the number on the back of the shirt and report them too, and lets not get started on spitting. You mean Chris Lines? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 15, 2016 12:39:16 GMT
It's all about timescales I suppose. No point spunking loads of dosh on the place if we're going to be leaving in two years. However, if the negotiations with the UWE mean a resubmitted planning application then it would be good for some more easy wins at the Mem. A couple of bins and paper is hardly spunking a load of money. A lick of paint is hardly spunking a load of money. There are no bins to stick rubbish in and they can be bought for such little cost. Think you'll see a quick resolution to the hand drier issue  |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 13, 2016 11:22:19 GMT
So that's 20 goals for the season, for according to some "a non league player". Nothing else to say. Looks a proper player to me and always has but I am not surprised there are Rovers fans who don`t rate him. There were many who saw Rickie Lambert as a lazy fat sod who only scored free kicks and penalties. No, that was just the opinion of our Director of Football at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 15:42:12 GMT
I see what you have done there with South (East) Bristol. Good public transport links there buses, trains etc? As to the M32 junction anyone coming from North West / Central Bristol would have to negotiate it, so as you admit a big downside there. I personally would go less if in the highly unlikelihood the ground was built in Emersons Green, much like the fact I refuse to work out there as well. And I'm still left wondering when the new junction is going to be built (approved?). As to population you'd need to be scientific & assess where you target markets are across the whole of the city seems a bit small minded to be targetting only 40k of the city's population. Would hope our new owners were aiming higher than that. But overall I'd put Emersons Green ahead of Avonmouth & Over Lane and far behind a UWE or Rolls Royce site. New metrobus from Parkway and from town will have a stop on the park and ride right in the middle of Lyde Green, so pretty good public transport. Not quite as good as UWE, but pretty good.
I reckon a lot more home fans will come from East / South East Bristol than will come from the villages of the North West. Access from Central Bristol would be similar to UWE - 2.6 miles south from the M32, rather than a busier 1.7 miles north. Even without a new M4 junction, road access would not be significantly worse than UWE, and for most home fans, a little bit better. I live in Kingswood and work in Lyde Green, even at rush hour it takes me a reliable 15 minutes, its a piece of cake to get to. When I worked at HP next to UWE, it would often take up to an hour due to traffic.
So - similar road access from central Bristol. Better access from south / east Bristol. Marginally worse access from North Bristol (an extra couple of miles on the ring road, whoo). More parking, with a park and ride next door. Slightly - but only slightly - worse public transport for away fans, but similar, or perhaps even better, for home fans (metrobus vs irregular trains). On 2 cycle routes. A large population close by, but not too close by, crying out for facilities and entertainment. Way more land available, already earmarked for leisure use. And I can walk there from my work!
And that's the last I'm going to say on the matter, its all speculation anyway.
Whole heartedly agree with your last point |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 14:35:21 GMT
What does Google Maps say for Avonmouth, Henbury, Bishopston, South Bristol? Not where most home fans are coming from - Kingswood pop = 40k+, Avonmouth = 12k. But anyway:
Avonmouth - UWE = 24 m, LG = 24m. Henbury - UWE = 22m LG = 28m Bishopston = UWE = 16m, LG = 26m South Bristol - using Brislington (cos of all the Rovers fans coming from City's heartland) - UWE = 24m, LG = 20m
Fact is, from our traditional heartland, Lyde Green would be closer by car, and quicker too as you wouldn't have to negotiate the congested M32 junction.
I see what you have done there with South (East) Bristol. Good public transport links there buses, trains etc? As to the M32 junction anyone coming from North West / Central Bristol would have to negotiate it, so as you admit a big downside there. I personally would go less if in the highly unlikelihood the ground was built in Emersons Green, much like the fact I refuse to work out there as well. And I'm still left wondering when the new junction is going to be built (approved?). As to population you'd need to be scientific & assess where you target markets are across the whole of the city seems a bit small minded to be targetting only 40k of the city's population. Would hope our new owners were aiming higher than that. But overall I'd put Emersons Green ahead of Avonmouth & Over Lane and far behind a UWE or Rolls Royce site. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 14:00:30 GMT
Appreciate Faggoty is banging his drum but the facts are that the Mem is more central than UWE but UWE is far more central than Emersons Green. Throw in the far better transport links (has the new junction at Emersons Green even been approved yet?) and if it's between UWE or Emersons Green it's a no brainer. Even the friends I go with who live in Emersons Green think it would be mental to build there. The Transport links also gives UWE the edge over Rolls Royce and definately Avonmouth (though at Avonmouth the club would have a monopoly on drinking establishments, its a long old slep from the Miles or Royal to that available site). From Kingswood high street, for example, Google Maps says it takes 18 minutes on a Saturday afternoon; Lyde Green takes 14 minutes at the same time. What does Google Maps say for Avonmouth, Henbury, Bishopston, South Bristol? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 13:55:55 GMT
A site that has access from one country lane? Seems we are trying to find more & more obscure sights. If they could get large lorries down there then cars are no problem,there is also the opportunity to open other accessess Interesting proposition Brian, the odd truck through the day or 10,000 people all arriving at the same time. And with no public transport. Not a hope it would get past planning in my view. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 13:42:36 GMT
I'd suggest the club should take forward the Pirates nickname & commercialise it as much as possible. Whilst the Gas / Gashead should remain the colloquial domain of the fans. Think from the clubs point of view & from a commercial point of view they can only take forward one nickname.
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 13:10:25 GMT
What about the old Cattybrook Brick factory site A site that has access from one country lane? Seems we are trying to find more & more obscure sights. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 11, 2016 12:11:52 GMT
Appreciate Faggoty is banging his drum but the facts are that the Mem is more central than UWE but UWE is far more central than Emersons Green. Throw in the far better transport links (has the new junction at Emersons Green even been approved yet?) and if it's between UWE or Emersons Green it's a no brainer. Even the friends I go with who live in Emersons Green think it would be mental to build there.
The Transport links also gives UWE the edge over Rolls Royce and definately Avonmouth (though at Avonmouth the club would have a monopoly on drinking establishments, its a long old slep from the Miles or Royal to that available site).
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 8, 2016 15:39:12 GMT
Really? That's bad news, none of those things are needed there.
However - those things would only take up a small part of the land there. I really want to be able to walk from my work to the Rovers!
Yes, how about a Burger King for some variety? I would like to walk there as well and although i live not far away in Staple Hill, i work at Abbey Wood! Small takeaway outlet, sounds like something TRASH would support for the Mem site. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 8, 2016 11:14:36 GMT
Could this also suggest that Easter not impressed the boss much & he has identified OMcB as an ideal replacement for Rory Gaffrney short term rather than rely on Jermaine or Fallon. I'm sure you've watched Gaffney & Easter and it is quite obvious the only similiarity they have is occupying the same spot on the team sheet. Early in the season it was obvious we needed more physicality upfront & Gaffney has provided that, Easter isn't going to turn into that player at this late stage of his career. No comment on Fallon though as I've not seen him play I'm guessing he may have the physicality of Gaffney but without the energy & workrate? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 7, 2016 17:59:17 GMT
Taking KS's lead I wasn't replying to you so keep your ignorant nose out. But Dr that's fine it's a public forum & people are entitled to their opinion, some of us are okay with that & some like Kevin & Les aren't happy with that. Ultimately we won't always have the same opinion but I'll treat people as they treat others. I have more respect for others opinions than most but if you look back up the thread you will see who described one of my posts as crap so I think you need to look in a mirror regarding intolerance. As to your last point, that's exactly how I responded. I'm happy that we both agree on that so for the sake of others can we agree to leave it there. If I ment it I apologise for obviously getting under your skin but as I don't have any respect for how you (and indeed Les) post on here I wouldn't mean it, so I won't. But happy to leave it as this has nothing to do with Brian or the Sharescheme (pity we can't get answers ob that). |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 7, 2016 17:19:52 GMT
It seems to me that the ego problem is yours. Precisely Taking KS's lead I wasn't replying to you so keep your ignorant nose out. But Dr that's fine it's a public forum & people are entitled to their opinion, some of us are okay with that & some like Kevin & Les aren't happy with that. Ultimately we won't always have the same opinion but I'll treat people as they treat others. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 7, 2016 13:33:18 GMT
If it's a private issue why bring it up on here? Just back posting & its the same 'I know more than you' crap that you always posted before. I was actually replying to KP so with respect keep your ignorant nose out.  I'd keep your ego off public forums if you don't want people putting their ignorant noses in. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 19:04:21 GMT
My mistake after your personal snipe at Brian & his self-interest (& there can’t be anything more personal than that) I stupidly forgot, after all these years, that you can give it out but can’t take it. But more importantly there obviously is a reason why the 8% of shares weren’t purchased. I’ll stick with my opinion that it was to protect any leak, particularly as there was no press release from the club to say they were negotiating a sale with anyone. However that isn’t to completely discount your theory which I’m guessing is that the old board didn’t want the price per share disclosed (I have to guess because for some unfathomed reason you would rather insinuate than articulate your thoughts), though you did then argue against that reasoning by correctly pointing out the share price could’ve remained undisclosed via a confidentiality agreement (though that wouldn’t have stopped word of the deal escaping necessarily). The truth could, if you think rationally, be a mix of the two. As I’m sure neither of us has spoken to the new owners perhaps we’ll never know. But as you say ‘it doesn’t really matter, now though’. Much like Brian’s reasons for remaining in his position under the old board. Of course what will be interesting is if the new owners make an offer for the remaining shares and what the Sharescheme agreement says about accepting or rejecting an offer (though I suspect under current law the new owners can force through the purchase of the shares, I also suspect the remaining shareholders could force the purchase of their shares) and what happens to any proceeds from the sale of the shares. There is no way I want my shares brought back by the new owners and I do not know of any other shareholders who want theirs brought back.
My five shares cost £100 many years ago and as far as I was concerned, I wrote that money off when I brought them.
It allows me to attend the AGM's and quiz the Board on aspects regarding the finances of BRFC. Long may it last.
I only said you possibly could not that you should or would. But best hope the new owners don't come trying to force through the purchase of the remaining shares. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 16:13:50 GMT
Feel free to disagree, I know you wouldn't agree with anything you hadn't thought of first. As to confidentiality agreements they would have had to make those with every shareholder, not just the supporters club. It would've just taken one person to refuse to sign it & then blabbed that the club had asked him to sign one to give the game away. Agree that they would've had to offer the same price & I don't doubt that would be significantly less than the sharescheme has been buying shares. Oh God, the usual sniping and irrationality. Enjoy My mistake after your personal snipe at Brian & his self-interest (& there can’t be anything more personal than that) I stupidly forgot, after all these years, that you can give it out but can’t take it. But more importantly there obviously is a reason why the 8% of shares weren’t purchased. I’ll stick with my opinion that it was to protect any leak, particularly as there was no press release from the club to say they were negotiating a sale with anyone. However that isn’t to completely discount your theory which I’m guessing is that the old board didn’t want the price per share disclosed (I have to guess because for some unfathomed reason you would rather insinuate than articulate your thoughts), though you did then argue against that reasoning by correctly pointing out the share price could’ve remained undisclosed via a confidentiality agreement (though that wouldn’t have stopped word of the deal escaping necessarily). The truth could, if you think rationally, be a mix of the two. As I’m sure neither of us has spoken to the new owners perhaps we’ll never know. But as you say ‘it doesn’t really matter, now though’. Much like Brian’s reasons for remaining in his position under the old board. Of course what will be interesting is if the new owners make an offer for the remaining shares and what the Sharescheme agreement says about accepting or rejecting an offer (though I suspect under current law the new owners can force through the purchase of the shares, I also suspect the remaining shareholders could force the purchase of their shares) and what happens to any proceeds from the sale of the shares. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 13:48:50 GMT
No, as previously stated, I think the 8% of shares not purchased was to avoid any leaks of the deal happening. Find it strange (no I'm actually lying there but it was a slightly different answer than I was expecting) you can't remember if there was any mechanism built into the sharescheme to allow for those shares to be sold & what would happen with the proceeds. Well it was nearly fourteen years ago Paul. And there were bigger issues. I dont agree with you, they could have bought the shares under a confidentiality clause. They could do so now, but they would have to offer the same price. The finances would be there for all to see in that case. It doesnt really matter, now though. Feel free to disagree, I know you wouldn't agree with anything you hadn't thought of first. As to confidentiality agreements they would have had to make those with every shareholder, not just the supporters club. It would've just taken one person to refuse to sign it & then blabbed that the club had asked him to sign one to give the game away. Agree that they would've had to offer the same price & I don't doubt that would be significantly less than the sharescheme has been buying shares. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 6, 2016 13:13:12 GMT
I'm sure with all this dissatisfaction with Brian we'll have a lot of people standing to replace him when he is up for reelection. But it would be interesting if the new owners seek to purchase the Sharescheme shares what provision was included in the agreement for that potential situation? To be honest I dont recall. But the point about why the sharescheme shares not being bought had more to with a public declaration of value which I am sure the majority shareholders did not want. Dont you think? No, as previously stated, I think the 8% of shares not purchased was to avoid any leaks of the deal happening. Find it strange (no I'm actually lying there but it was a slightly different answer than I was expecting) you can't remember if there was any mechanism built into the sharescheme to allow for those shares to be sold & what would happen with the proceeds. |
|
